¶¶Òõ¾«Æ·

The state-appointed defence counsel for absconding deposed prime minister Sheikh Hasina and her former home minister Asaduzzaman Khan on Monday told the International Crimes Tribunal-1 that the July 2024 atrocities were isolated incidents, not widespread or systemic.

Lawyer Amir Hossain made the submission while placing his arguments defending Hasina and Asaduzzaman in the crimes against humanity case against Hasina and Asaduzzaman and detained former inspector general of police Chowdhury Abdullah Al Mamun for their superior command responsibility in committing atrocities during the July uprising in 2024.

Hasina and Asaduzzaman are facing the trial in absentia.

Detained Mamun was in the dock. He has turned a state evidence and had earlier testified in the tribunal against Hasina and Asaduzzaman.

Amir Hossain told the tribunal that Hasina had undertaken many development initiatives during her tenure. ‘She might have made some mistakes in governance, but she cannot be accused randomly.

The tribunal, chaired by Justice Md Golam Mortuza Mozumder, asked Amir to identify any prosecution evidence that was false or contradictory.

Amir’s arguments remained incomplete when the tribunal adjourned the hearing until Monday.

The defence lawyer told the tribunal that the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973 contained many procedural obstacles, making it unfair to the accused in the July movement case.

‘It is like asking the accused to swim in a river after tying their hands and legs,’ he said.

He argued that the prosecution’s claim of widespread atrocities was unsupported, as the evidence showed that only one student coordinator, Abu Sayeed of Begum Rokeya University, Rangpur, was killed during the 36-day movement.

He said that the prosecution produced only 15 to 20 witnesses from a few districts, which could not prove that crimes took place across 52 districts as alleged.

Amir argued that the charges against Hasina were politically motivated.

‘If the attacks were truly systematic,’ he said, ‘the top coordinators of the movement, such as Nahid Islam, Hasnat Abdullah, Sarjis Alam, and Asif Mahmud Shojib Bhuyain, would have been killed. But they were not.’

He further contended that the Evidence Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure were not applicable to the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973, making the trial process unfair to the accused.

Amir told the tribunal that the ICT law had been repeatedly amended since 1973 to suit the interests of different governments, and that the Rome Statute’s context did not match the situation in Bangladesh.

He argued that Sheikh Hasina could not be accused of random crimes, claiming the charges were designed to topple her government.

Amir added that the government’s strategy during the July movement could not be termed targeted since the number of deaths was small despite thousands of protesters gathering at places such as Jatrabari, Badda, Chankharpool and Ashulia.

‘Not more than 20 people were killed in one of the violent places,’ he said.

In response, the tribunal observed that even single incidents could amount to widespread crimes depending on their context.

‘Targeted does not mean who, where, or how many will be killed. It refers to the presence of a strategy,’ the tribunal noted, referring to definitions under the Rome Statute.

Amir submitted that there should have been at least two prosecution witnesses from each district, and their testimonies should have been corroborated to establish that the atrocities were widespread.

The tribunal further explained that ‘targeted’ crimes did not depend on the number of people killed or the locations of attacks.

‘Target means there should be a strategy,’ the judges said, referring to the Rome Statute, which does not require everyone to be killed to constitute a targeted attack.

During the exchange, the tribunal asked Amir whether the top leaders of the Liberation War had been killed. Amir replied, ‘How could they be killed when they were in India?’

The tribunal then pointed out that ‘your number one leader was in Pakistan.’

When Amir argued that Hasina had never referred to the July protesters as the ‘grandsons and granddaughters of Razakars,’ the tribunal remarked that the term ‘Razakar’ had become a political insult during the Awami League regime.

Earlier, chief prosecutor Muhammad Tajul Islam completed his arguments in the case, seeking death sentences for Hasina and Asaduzzaman for their alleged command responsibility in the July atrocities that left at least 1,400 people dead and 25,000 injured.